Barry Brook just posted this tweet, with a link to a pro-nuclear article by Prof. Leslie Kerneny in the Canberra Times that contains that particular sentence:
Given the emissions crisis, in 2013, it is just as foolish to be a ”nuclear denier” as a ”climate sceptic”:
I am not sure if that will help to convince many anti-nuclear voices that they should change their views. But what is a “nuclear denier” anyway? Would that be someone who denies the basic facts about nuclear, which would make sense when comparing to “climate sceptics”?
If so, wouldn’t that be someone who hopes against all available data that nuclear will contribute anything to solving the global climate crisis? Nuclear clearly is in decline. Nuclear is hopeless as a climate change solution. It would be highly irresponsible to base your strategy on the faint chances of changing that situation and hope for the nuclear bailout.
As I wrote in another related post:
At this point, denying that nuclear is a failed loser solution is about as realistic as denying that climate change is happening in the first place.
So, yes, I could easily agree with the above statement by Brook and Kerneny.
With the appropriate understanding of the term “nuclear denier”, that is.